Help Needed....Our property but cannot use it??

theEnd

Dbenn wrote: »

Nothing to do with obsession and just because you have a view does not make it correct. Are you a legal professional or just a property owner like me?

Why ask the question on a forum if you're not interested in the answers people give?

Go and see a professional. They will tell you the same thing.

G_M

4 pages of posts. 71 posts. You have had repeated explanations from multiple people about the relationship between the freehold and the leases, and about the enforceabilityof clauses in the lease.

Yet you have continued repeatedly to whine "but I own this land - does that count for nothing?"

I'd call that obsessing with ownership.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Dbenn wrote: »

Nothing to do with obsession and just because you have a view does not make it correct. Are you a legal professional or just a property owner like me?

Doesn't the fact that everybody here, without exception, holds the same view give you some cause to believe that it might be the correct one?

getmore4less

When you bought the freehold did you not check what you were buying?

or is that the wifes fault as well?

easiest way to get access to the garage roof is buy the lease of the flat above.

I think it is for sale.

Pricivius

Thanks for clarifying my understanding. It sounds as though someone has made a bit of a dog's breakfast of the leases, but that doesn't negate the fact that at some point a while ago all this was agreed and documented (poorly) and has been followed ever since.

As others have said, you have not actually lost anything. Your wife bought the property content that she was paying for the flat with garden and garage and aware that the garage roof terrace was not for her use. Nothing has changed. She paid for what she got. It turns out that the leases are slightly bonkers, but what they contain is being followed. She (you) are not entitled to anything more or anything less - you have a lease which includes a bit of land which is not in your use as presumably a predecessor-in-title agreed to sell its use. She (you) did not realise, but it does not change anything.

If upstairs want to add the half of garage roof terrace to their leasehold, I would ask why as they don't have the lease for the other half. What's the point? If they want it badly enough, then figure out how much you want for it, bearing in mind that it is useless (literally). Actually, having said that, as the half roof terrace is in your lease and the other half sits with the freehold, I wonder why upstairs paid for the repair, unless their use clause includes a provision that they must also maintain. I would have expected you to have to fund repairs for the half within your lease and the freehold to fund the non-leased half... although I'm speculating here!

theEnd

If they're willing to pay to have the leases updated correctly, it might be in your interest (depending how the lease is currently worded).

Going forward, it might be a liability for you and will probably cause you some issues if you come to sell.

It sounds like your lease is for exclusive rights to areas X+Y+Z, but then gives away exclusive rights to Z. (Presuming for a payment). Your wife has purchased X+Y+Z-Z, so on X+Y.

Ideally, both leases should have been updated to reflect this at the time.

G_M

Pricivius wrote: »

....... unless their use clause includes a provision that they must also maintain. I would have expected you to have to fund repairs for the half within your lease and the freehold to fund the non-leased half... although I'm speculating here!

Post 6. Sigh!

still waiting to see what the lease actually says.....

Freecall

G_M wrote: »

Post 6. Sigh!

Why quote exactly what the lease says when you can paraphrase, restate, reword, and semi-interpret?

You just want an easy life.

Dbenn

Pricivius wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying my understanding. It sounds as though someone has made a bit of a dog's breakfast of the leases, but that doesn't negate the fact that at some point a while ago all this was agreed and documented (poorly) and has been followed ever since.

As others have said, you have not actually lost anything. Your wife bought the property content that she was paying for the flat with garden and garage and aware that the garage roof terrace was not for her use. Nothing has changed. She paid for what she got. It turns out that the leases are slightly bonkers, but what they contain is being followed. She (you) are not entitled to anything more or anything less - you have a lease which includes a bit of land which is not in your use as presumably a predecessor-in-title agreed to sell its use. She (you) did not realise, but it does not change anything.

If upstairs want to add the half of garage roof terrace to their leasehold, I would ask why as they don't have the lease for the other half. What's the point? If they want it badly enough, then figure out how much you want for it, bearing in mind that it is useless (literally). Actually, having said that, as the half roof terrace is in your lease and the other half sits with the freehold, I wonder why upstairs paid for the repair, unless their use clause includes a provision that they must also maintain. I would have expected you to have to fund repairs for the half within your lease and the freehold to fund the non-leased half... although I'm speculating here!

Thank you very much for your helpful reply, I appreciate it.

Dbenn

theEnd wrote: »

If they're willing to pay to have the leases updated correctly, it might be in your interest (depending how the lease is currently worded).

Going forward, it might be a liability for you and will probably cause you some issues if you come to sell.

It sounds like your lease is for exclusive rights to areas X+Y+Z, but then gives away exclusive rights to Z. (Presuming for a payment). Your wife has purchased X+Y+Z-Z, so on X+Y.

Ideally, both leases should have been updated to reflect this at the time.

Thank you for your help, I appreciate it.